This doesn't seem like a great deal. You save $12 of $96 a year (big whoop), you go from two devices to one, and you now can't watch in high quality on another device even if you're temporarily somewhere it's available. Say, stuck with the relatives for the holidays.

What about the person who only watches on their old phone? Well, okay, as you said they might as well save the $12 since it's 'free' and they'd never use HD or never need a second device.

But you'd really have to be desperate to be doing this as a purely money saving measure, and this will be a pittance of what you're paying for the data.

Edit: Okay, so it's a good deal for the guy in the very next post. $12 is $12 if you'll never use it.

Netflix only is watched on one screen at a time and, mainly, only through one device. I really don't care about HD on Netflix. There's very little there that would seem to benefit from the need for HD anyway. There've been a few things on iTunes that I prefer in HD. HD quality from iTunes also seems better than HD from Netflix.

I'd like to sign up for the plan that makes me pay a buck extra a month, for which I get Netflix telling ISPs to go F*** themselves once a month and in card form once a year that says "Merry Xmas, now go F*** yourselves".

Wait, so is viewing restricted to a single device, or to a single device at a given moment? For example, could I watch on my home desktop, then sign out and watch on my smartphone while I'm out? As I understand this policy, the $7.99 plan allows two SIMULTANEOUS streams to run, whereas the cheaper plan allows only one stream at a time, but you can watch that single stream on whatever device you choose. Am I missing something here?

Seems like the ISPs' plans to limit streaming from 3rd parties through the implementation of data caps and punitive overage charges is working. I smell demise for Netflix and the like if trends can't be reversed.

Wait, so is viewing restricted to a single device, or to a single device at a given moment? For example, could I watch on my home desktop, then sign out and watch on my smartphone while I'm out? As I understand this policy, the $7.99 plan allows two SIMULTANEOUS streams to run, whereas the cheaper plan allows only one stream at a time, but you can watch that single stream on whatever device you choose. Am I missing something here?

I have a pretty strong feeling that this is part of a long-term strategy for tiers. It started with the family share plan, now this has been added. Neither does all that much different from the Netflix basic package, but it gets the idea of tiers in people's heads. The endgame would be anyone's guess, but maybe a TV/series-only tier for people who don't care about movies, or an original content-only tier for people that hear about House of Cards and want to support that without opening up the whole catalog. They could also introduce a separate pricing structure for the already-extant Netflix Kids. Or, most cynically, they could just be gearing up to raise the price of the basic package.

Seems like the ISPs' plans to limit streaming from 3rd parties through the implementation of data caps and punitive overage charges is working. I smell demise for Netflix and the like if trends can't be reversed.

Over ISP policies in a handful of cities? Data caps in the US for wired services are largely non-existent.

Companies like Comcast have been hinting at data caps for over 5 years now and yet to implement them widely or enforce them.

This is just another way to rape pillage and plunder the existing subscriber base. I have been with NF since they started and I was always able to watch it on two TV's sanctimoniously. Now they want more money just to double Reed's pay. When will companies learn to stick with the business model that actually made them what they are today. If you keep nickel and dimming us to death, we will leave and find our media another way; can you say Torrents? What a joke. It's also a perfect solution to appeased the shareholders now that we have become a shareholder society as opposed to a stakeholder society. You know the one where the employees own the company; ESOP....

This is just another way to rape pillage and plunder the existing subscriber base. I have been with NF since they started and I was always able to watch it on two TV's sanctimoniously. Now they want more money just to double Reed's pay. When will companies learn to stick with the business model that actually made them what they are today. If you keep nickel and dimming us to death, we will leave and find our media another way; can you say Torrents? What a joke. It's also a perfect solution to appeased the shareholders now that we have become a shareholder society as opposed to a stakeholder society. You know the one where the employees own the company; ESOP....

If I invest my money into a company. Im pretty sure I'm a stakeholder as I have a stake in whether the company does well or not.

This is just another way to rape pillage and plunder the existing subscriber base. I have been with NF since they started and I was always able to watch it on two TV's sanctimoniously. Now they want more money just to double Reed's pay. When will companies learn to stick with the business model that actually made them what they are today. If you keep nickel and dimming us to death, we will leave and find our media another way; can you say Torrents? What a joke. It's also a perfect solution to appeased the shareholders now that we have become a shareholder society as opposed to a stakeholder society. You know the one where the employees own the company; ESOP....

Nickel and diming? I've been paying the same price for Netflix for years. Nothing has changed, and everything has gotten better.

If you find a way to consume media better and at a bett r value than Netflix, call and let me know.

I was going to guess you used the wrong word here, but considering how Netflix is "raping and pillaging" you without changing anything on your existing account, I guess you didn't.

Kidding, kidding... it was just sitting there begging for it and I couldn't help myself, and I'm gonna devolve into my own rant in a minute.

Seriously though, this could be just another option to get people that are on the fence about signing up for Netflix to give it a try, or it could be the beginning of some nefarious plot to raise prices on existing customers and screw us all. Since there's really no proof of the later at this time, I think I'll go with the former for now. Anyone stuck on crappy DSL could actually benefit from this, as could anyone that only watches on their smaller screen devices. I'd never recommend this to someone with kids, but a single person who isn't a major videophile, sure, why not?

Engage tinfoil hats now: Pretty much all the major ISPs in the US have worked data caps into the contracts now. They "don't enforce them" supposedly, but the fact they exist at all becomes a form of social engineering. Most people hear there is a cap and they self monitor just to be on the safe side, often limiting themselves well bellow the cap without the ISP having to life a finger. Don't think that if they notice someone falling into the top 5% of bandwidth use the ISP would hesitate for a second to cut them off. Especially if it's a cable company and they can see you are pinging Netflix. You'll find yourself quickly throttled "for the good of the network" and helpfully redirected to their "competitively priced" On Demand options.

This is just another way to rape pillage and plunder the existing subscriber base. I have been with NF since they started and I was always able to watch it on two TV's sanctimoniously.

The irony of your misuse of the word "sanctimoniously" is deliciously reflected in every word of your incoherent rant.

As someone who has happily been paying Netflix $7.99 to stream movies for several years now, it's unclear to how exactly them offering a cheaper option for less service constitutes raping and pillaging anyone.

Do people actually make decisions on their digital services based on a difference of $1 per month?

Like, are people actually going to to change their service to save $12 a year. I can't imagine wasting the time to make the phone call for $12 a year.

Not that I'm Richie Rich or anything, but it's such an insignificant amount as to be practically nonexistent.

Shame on them for offering a cheaper version of the service! It's like Redbox offering DVDs for $0.30 less than Blu-Ray. I mean, it's like 30 cents! Can you believe that a Big Gulp is offered for 69 cents when for only 89 cents, you can get a Super Big Gulp? 20 whole cents - who doesn't have that?

What would be nice is if they allowed you to manually switch to a variety of lower HD or SD bit rates even if your bandwidth supported SuperHD; since sometimes you don't care if the movie is in HD and would rather not eat up your monthly cap.

What would be nice is if they allowed you to manually switch to a variety of lower HD or SD bit rates even if your bandwidth supported SuperHD; since sometimes you don't care if the movie is in HD and would rather not eat up your monthly cap.

Us: Why are there data caps?ISPs: Because transit is expensive, but our network can handle it.

Us: But transit is about 10x cheaper than what you're charging.ISPs: Transit is cheap, but all of this data puts large strain on our networks and it's expensive to upgrade last mile.

Us: Which is it, expensive transit or old infrastructure?ISPs: Depends on which question you're asking.

Actually upgrading the last mile can be relatively expensive and when you are in a situation where there simply is no competition (something I have read lots about is the case in the USA) the ISP will not consider investing it.

Looking at what were planning to do in Amsterdam this coming year for the outer rings (customers on copper cable further then 1.5KM+ from the central distribution points) it is going to cost millions for a city with relatively high density and lots of existing fiber optic cable already there it is easy to see why a company with no competition would not spend that kind of money.

Us: Why are there data caps?ISPs: Because transit is expensive, but our network can handle it.

Us: But transit is about 10x cheaper than what you're charging.ISPs: Transit is cheap, but all of this data puts large strain on our networks and it's expensive to upgrade last mile.

Us: Which is it, expensive transit or old infrastructure?ISPs: Depends on which question you're asking.

Actually upgrading the last mile can be relatively expensive and when you are in a situation where there simply is no competition (something I have read lots about is the case in the USA) the ISP will not consider investing it.

Looking at what were planning to do in Amsterdam this coming year for the outer rings (customers on copper cable further then 1.5KM+ from the central distribution points) it is going to cost millions for a city with relatively high density and lots of existing fiber optic cable already there it is easy to see why a company with no competition would not spend that kind of money.

Relatively expensive. Intel spends $10bil on a fab plant and they might sell a few $100 CPUs for a fraction of the USA, but a place like Comcast might spend $10bil, but they make $100/month from 25% of the US population.

I just went and checked my subscription and must be grandfathered into an older plan. They're giving me 4 simultaneous streams for $7.99 with the option to go down to 2 for the same price.

Man, that's cool for you. I used to be able to stream to 4 devices at once, but they cut me down to 2 a few months ago. I didn't know until I tried to watch something one night and got a message saying I already had two streams going.

And for the guy with the 45Mb/s service, I have a paltry 10Mbps fixed wireless broadband service, and my family regularly has 4 simultaneous streams going. It's about like watching old SD TV with slightly poor reception, but none of us are picky about television. I hate paying $50/month for only 10Mbps, but at least I consistently get 10Mbps for my money.

Do people actually make decisions on their digital services based on a difference of $1 per month?

Like, are people actually going to to change their service to save $12 a year. I can't imagine wasting the time to make the phone call for $12 a year.

It's the equivalent of auto manufacturers stating "Starts at $12,999!" for cars that have no air conditioning, no power anything, and probably don't have seats. Great for attention getting in ads, but no one ever ends up with that cheapest option.